[bestbits] draft Best Bits statement on UGF 2014
Gene Kimmelman
genekimmelman at gmail.com
Thu Sep 4 16:08:20 EDT 2014
I suggest we find someone who has been closely following the internal UN
discussions to address Pranesh's question. I certainly have heard that
numerous countries have raised questions about extending the IGF, but I
don't have first hand information on that.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
wrote:
> Dear Jeanette and all,
> Do we know of anyone who is opposed to:
>
> * Renewal of the IGF's mandate for another 5/10 years? or
> * Having an open-ended mandate for the IGF?
>
> It would be useful to know who exactly are opposed to these and why.
>
> Stephanie, you mentioned that I was "voicing concerns that we have heard
> from both govt and business". Could you please specify which government
> delegations and which businesses / business associations you have heard
> this from? Thanks!
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-002 23:45:35 +0200
> ]:
>
>>
>>
>> Stephanie did circulate our second version today. You should have got it.
>>
>> Meanwhile, there is a chance that some governments will also endorse it.
>> We are working on this right now.
>>
>> The statement, sort of born at the BB meeting, could become an informal
>> or formal outcome of the IGF.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Am 02.09.14 16:55, schrieb Andrew Puddephatt:
>>
>>> can both statements - short and long be posted for approval?
>>>
>>> *Andrew Puddephatt*
>>>> Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
>>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
>>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)7713399597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
>>>> gp-digital.org <http://gp-digital.org/>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 September 2014 13:35, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org
>>> <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dear all - just following up on the agreement at the Best Bits
>>> meeting
>>> > earlier this week for a statement on the IGF.
>>> > Many thanks to those who made comments on the draft statement
>>> which is
>>> > in the meeting document https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y
>>> > The draft statement has been tidied and now has a clean version
>>> starting
>>> > at line 325.
>>> > Please do try to review by the end of Wednesday so that any edits
>>> can be
>>> > made and sent in time for a deadline of agreement of end of
>>> Thursday
>>> > Turkey time for presentation at the IGF on Friday.
>>>
>>> So to clarify, there are now *three* overlapping statements:
>>>
>>> 1. One from Jeanette, Stephanie and others at
>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K which is proposed to be a
>>> *multi-stakeholder* statement on extension of the IGF.[0]
>>>
>>> 2. One at https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y from line 325
>>> which is a draft opt-in Best Bits sign-on statement on IGF extension
>>> and other issues.[1]
>>>
>>> 3. A subset of 2, being simply the paragraph "We call for the
>>> establishment of the IGF as a permanent multistakeholder forum
>>> within the framework of the UN, that should be reformed and
>>> strengthened," which has the distinction of being a *consensus*
>>> outcome of our Best BIts meeting.
>>>
>>> MY QUESTION:
>>>
>>> It is clear what happens to 2 - we add it to Best Bits website for
>>> individual endorsement as per our usual practice. But what happens
>>> with 1 and 3? I suggest recording 3 on the "Outputs" tab of our
>>> meeting page at http://bestbits.net/events/best-bits-2014. But what
>>> would be an appropriate way for Best Bits network members to show
>>> support for 1 (I don't suppose we can assume it inherits the
>>> consensus that we reached on 3)?
>>>
>>>
>>> [0] Current full text below:
>>>
>>> In 2005, the UN Member states asked the UN Secretary-General in the
>>> Tunis Agenda, to convene a meeting of the new forum for
>>> multi-stakeholder policy dialogue—called the Internet Governance
>>> Forum (IGF). (Footnote: paragraph 72, Tunis Agenda)
>>>
>>> The mandate of the Forum was to discuss public policy issues
>>> relating to key elements of Internet governance, such as those
>>> enumerated in the Tunis Agenda, in order to foster the
>>> sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development of
>>> the Internet in developed and developing countries. The Forum was
>>> not to replace existing arrangements, mechanisms, institutions or
>>> organizations. It was intended to constitute a neutral,
>>> non-duplicative and non-binding process, and have no involvement in
>>> day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet.
>>>
>>> The Tunis Agenda also asked the UN Secretary-General to examine the
>>> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal
>>> consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its
>>> creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this
>>> regard. At its sixty-fifth session, the General Assembly decided to
>>> extend the mandate of the IGF, underlining the need to improve the
>>> IGF “with a view to linking it to the broader dialogue on global
>>> Internet governance”.
>>>
>>> In his note on the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum,
>>> the UN Secretary General confirmed that the IGF was unique and
>>> valuable. It is a place where Governments, civil society, the
>>> private sector and international organizations discuss important
>>> questions of economic and social development. They share their
>>> insights and achievements and build a common understanding of the
>>> Internet’s great potential.
>>>
>>> The Secretary-General recommended that
>>> (a) That the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum be extended
>>> for a further five years;
>>> (b) That the desirability of continuation be considered again by
>>> Member
>>> States within the context of a 10-year review of implementation of
>>> the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2015;
>>>
>>> Footnote: (General Assembly, Sixty-fifth session, Item 17 of the
>>> preliminary list*, Information and communications technologies for
>>> development, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of
>>> 2010 New York, 28 June-23 July 2010, Agenda item 13 (b)**)
>>>
>>> The NetMundial Meeting, convened by the Government of Brazil, stated
>>> in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement on April 24th, 2014,
>>> that there is a need for a strengthened Internet Governance Forum
>>> (IGF). Important recommendations to that end had already been made
>>> by the UN CSTD working group on IGF improvements. The NetMundial
>>> Statement also stated that “a strengthened IGF could better serve as
>>> a platform for discussing both long standing and emerging issues
>>> with a view to contributing to the identification of possible ways
>>> to address them.”
>>>
>>> In 2016 it will have been ten years since the establishment of
>>> IGF. We , the undersigned multistakeholders, believe it has proven
>>> its worth. (content here on why) We think it is time to build on
>>> the success and to strengthen the forum that the UN initiated with
>>> the Tunis Agenda, and to give it a solid mandate and reliable
>>> financial support. These two goals are interrelated. To address the
>>> need for sustainable funding, the Internet Governance Forum Support
>>> Association (http://www.igfsa.org/) was formed at IGF 2014. The
>>> goal of this non-profit is to support and promote sustainable
>>> funding for the IGF. This funding effort as well a other existing
>>> funding mechanisms, together with long range planning for the IGF
>>> are essential in creating the strengthened IGF the Internet
>>> community needs in order to continues its work for the global
>>> Internet development goals.
>>>
>>> Given the significance of the Internet Governance Forum for the
>>> continuing development of Internet governance and based on success
>>> of the two 5 year periods of IGF operation, we request the UN
>>> Secretary General to establish the IGF as an ongoing (permanent)
>>> forum. We believe that the IGF should move beyond its initiation
>>> phase where repeated renewal by the UN General assembly is required
>>> and that it be allowed to do long range planning for its continuing
>>> and evolving work. We also request that the UN Secretary General
>>> work with the IGF and its stakeholders to strengthen its structure
>>> and processes in the spirit of its open and multistakeholder
>>> foundation.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] Current full text below:
>>>
>>> We, the undersigned below and all members of the Best Bits Network,
>>> re-emphasise that human rights and development are underlying
>>> concerns for all internet governance processes and mechanisms. At
>>> this 2014 IGF in Istanbul we wish to in particular call for: (and
>>> then the specific demands below)
>>>
>>> 1. We express serious concern about the shrinking space for freedom
>>> of expression and access to information in Turkey, especially in
>>> relation to internet filtering and blocking of content. Therefore
>>> Best Bits welcomes the initiative of the Internet Ungovernance Forum
>>> and Turkish civil society organizations to address this threat to
>>> human rights.
>>>
>>> 2. We call for the establishment of the IGF as a permanent
>>> multistakeholder forum within the framework of the UN, that should
>>> be reformed and strengthened.
>>>
>>> 3. We call for a more thorough and timely review of the IGF
>>> post-Istanbul (rather than waiting until early 2015) in order to
>>> look at potential changes that could lead to its further
>>> strengthening.
>>>
>>> 4 . We support NetMundial and its recommendations for the IGF, but
>>> express concerns about the number of new processes which civil
>>> society is being asked to be involved outside of the IGF and call
>>> for it to continue as the key forum for internet governance issues.
>>>
>>> 5. We commend the IGF for responding to the NETmundial roadmap by,
>>> for example, focusing on Net neutrality and ask the MAG and UNDESA
>>> and Brazil who is the host of the 2015 IGF to build on this, and to
>>> use regional and national IGFs as part of this process.
>>>
>>> 6. We call for the opening up of the WSIS+10 review modalities to
>>> ensure that stakeholders interests and views are heard and taken
>>> into account.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>>> https://eff.org
>>> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>
>>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>>
>>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/c549043a/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list